Non-recovery of a ticket does not defeat bona fide passenger status when its genuineness is verified.

The appellant filed an appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 against the dismissal of her claim application by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi, concerning the death of her son, Yogendra Pratap.

The deceased had allegedly left home on 30 June 2018 for employment in Ahmedabad, purchased a second-class superfast ticket from Agra Fort to Ahmedabad, and fell from a running train, sustaining fatal injuries. His body was subsequently found near the railway line and taken to Government Amrit Kaur Hospital, Beawar.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim, holding that the appellant had failed to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger or that his death resulted from an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act, 1989.

Before the High Court, the appellant relied on the deceased’s belongings, the journey ticket later produced and verified by the Railways, police proceedings, and medical records. The Railways contended that no ticket had been recovered from the deceased and that neither the train involved nor the manner of the accident had been established.

1. Whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger despite the non-recovery of the ticket from his person immediately after the incident.

2. Whether the deceased’s death was established to have resulted from an “untoward incident” involving a fall from a running train.

3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in relying on the belated DRM Report and the absence of evidence identifying the particular train involved.

The Court applied Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, governing appeals to the High Court, and the provisions of the Railways Act, 1989 relating to compensation for death caused by an “untoward incident” and the status of a bona fide passenger.

Relying on Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, the Court held that mere absence of a ticket from the deceased does not, by itself, negate bona fide passenger status; the claimant may discharge the initial burden through an affidavit and surrounding circumstances, after which the evidentiary burden shifts to the Railways.

The Court further applied the principle that contemporaneous records carry greater evidentiary value than a belated inquiry based on subsequent inferences, particularly where the later report does not satisfactorily displace the earlier material.

The Court held that the original journey ticket, bearing No. 92613696, had been produced and its genuineness independently verified by the Railways. Although the ticket was not recovered during the initial search, there was no material showing that it was fabricated or could not have been in the deceased’s possession; therefore, the non-recovery of the ticket was not decisive under the principle in *Rina Devi*.

With respect to the occurrence, contemporaneous railway and GRP records established that the deceased was found dead near LC Gate No. 22 at KM 339/5–6, with severe head and bodily injuries, and that the final GRP report attributed the death to a train accident causing severe head injury and shock.

The fact that the body was found outside the railway line did not conclusively disprove a fall from a moving train, since the speed or direction of a train could cause a person to land away from the track.

The Bangur Gram TSR did not establish which trains were available from Agra Fort at the relevant time, and the Agra Fort TSR had not been produced by the Railways.

Further, no eyewitness or railway official established that the deceased had been run over while crossing the track or otherwise died in a manner inconsistent with a fall from a train.

The DRM inquiry was initiated nearly one year after the incident and after the claim proceedings had commenced. Since its conclusions substantially relied on the non-recovery of the ticket and the location of the body—circumstances weakened by the verified ticket and the absence of contrary positive evidence—the Court declined to allow the belated report to override the contemporaneous material.

The matter was remanded to the Tribunal to assess the compensation payable in accordance with law and direct its disbursement within two months of receiving the High Court’s order. The matter was directed to be listed before the Tribunal on 8 September 2026.